ML20002D266
| ML20002D266 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1980 |
| From: | Mcdonald J TEXAS TECH UNIV., LUBBOCK, TX |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D264 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-76-345, CON-NRC-4-76-345, TASK-02-02.A, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8101200206 | |
| Download: ML20002D266 (26) | |
Text
_
O TORNADO AND STRAIGI-T WIND HAZARD PROBABILITY for YANKEE ROWE NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITE, MASSACHUSETTS by James R. McDcnold, P.E.
ns::ute for Disaster Tesearc, l
~EXAS EC-U s VE TS ~~Y Lubbocs,~kxes 79409
{
8103000$06
e TORNADO AND STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PROBASILITY for YANKEE R0WE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE, MASSACHUSETTS by James R. Mcdonald, P.E.
Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Site Safety Research Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research May, 1980 Institute for Disaster Research Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas
FOREWORD Hazard probability assessment for tornadoes and other extreme winds at the Yankee Rowe nuclear power generation site are presented herein at the request of Robert F. Abbey, Jr., Site Safety Research Branch, Division of Reactor Safety Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The work is supported under NRC Contract NRC-04-76-345.
Principal Investigator and Project Manager for the Institute for Disaster Research is James R.
Mcdonald, P.E.
t I
I.
INTRODUCTION The objective of this report is to assess tornado and straight wind probability hazards at the Yankee Rowe nuclear power generation site (see Fi g. 1 ). The hazard probability analyses are developed using storm rec-ords from the geographical region surrounding the site. Ninety-five percent confidence limits on the probabilities are presented to give an indication of the accuracy of the expected hazard probabilities.
The final hazard probability model is n' resented graphically in Figure 6.
Windspeeds corresponding to selected probability values are summarized in Table 8.
The basic data used in the calculations are presented in this report.
Derivation of the tornado hazard assessment methodology, the rationale and assumptions are given in Mcdonald (1980).
Use of the Type I extreme value distribution function for straight wind j
hazard assessment is well documented in Simiu and Scanlan (1978).
1 l
-r-
<-#i
'R
?g
- 44 mucra e
wwg NEW M N
)
g
/
.:...p..
- b t
REGiCN b
?
r s
'W YANKEE ROWE
[
ALBANY i
4 s
i p
WEAWER w
s s'
STATON
?...
.::lib h[:.:!!!$liii$$
lii[i i!!!
LOCAL Q
REGION
+-
s..
- i M "'
iiii......it :i::. -
gg' s
fili!
s GLOBAL
.:qig
- jjiij s
REGON
!!.!!;;i.li s
Pet 6TJANa I:l!!!
!!!I.i!i e s ser i
s
!!!l.!!!!
iiiiij fdi s
s l!!!! ' !@b.f.i.!,!!,!!.!.!.!!.! ',.....
iWis l.i.f..l.i.i.
-,y FIGURE 1.
LOCAL AND GLOBAL REGIONS FOR YANKEE R0WE s
a n
2
II. TORNADO HAZARD PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT A.
METHODOLOGY The tornado hazard model developed by the Institute for Disaster Research (IDR) accounts for gradations of damage across the tornado path width and along its length.
There are four basic steps involved in the methodology.
(1) Determination of an area-intensity relationship in a global region surrounding the site of interest.
(2) Determination of an occurrence-intensity relationship in a local region surrounding the site.
(3) Calculation of the probabilities of a point within the local region experiencing windspeeds in some windspeed interval.
(4) Determination of the probability of windspeeds in the local region exceeding the interval values.
B.
CALCULATIONS 1.
Site Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Generating Station 2.
Coordinates Latitude 42 43' 41" N Longitude 72 55' 29" W 3.
Area-Intensity Relationshio Global Region Latitude 39 to J4
'l Longitude 70 to 76 W Data DAPPLE Tornado Data Tape UT1678 (Fujita, et al., 1979)
Period of Record 1971 - 1978 3
See Figure 1 for definition of the global region. The region is selected to be as large as possible and still give reasonably homoge-nous conditions for tornado formation.
The relatively short period of record is used because the data are more complete and accurate than that collected prior to 1971, especially with regard to tornado damage path characteristics.
The area-intensity matrix is shown in Table 1.
It gives the number of tornadoes in each corresponding area-intensity classification.
Frcm this information, the mean damage path area per F-scale can be obtained.
TABLE 1 AREA-INTENSITY MATRIX Number of Tornadoes
- Area Mean Area Interval F0 F1 F2 F3 F4
~F5 (se mi) 0 4
13 1\\
0 0
0
- 0. 316 E-02 g
1 10 26 7
\\ 0 0
0 0.100E-01 2
4 25 5
2\\
0 0
0.316E-01 N
3 2
12 10 2
NO O
0.100E-00 4
0 5
7 1
0's 0 0.316E-00 5
0 2
0 0
0 \\,Q 0.100E 01 g
6 0
NO O
O 1
0 0.316E 01 7
0 Og 1 0
0 0
0.100E 02 3
0 0
NO O
O O
0.316E 02 9
0 0
k 0
0 0
0.100E 03 g
10 0
0 0 \\0 0
0 0.316E 03 Totals 20 83 31 5
1 0
- Those tornadoes outside the dashed lines are considered outliers and have been eliminated from the data set.
Mean Damage Path Area Per F-Scale F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Mean Area, sq mi 0.0220 0.0707 0.4337 0.1158 3.160 Median L'indspeed,
mph 56 92.5 135 182 233.5 239.5
Area-Intensity Function Linear regression analysis of the above area-intensity data, based on a log-log plot, yields the following functional relationship:
Log (Area) = 2.95 Log V - 6.889 (1)
The coefficient of determination is 2 = 0.397 r
Area-Intensity Relationship The expected mean area is obtained from Equation (1) above.
Upper and lower bound confidence limits are calculated at the 95 percent level.
These values are shown in Table 2.
Figure 2 shows a plot of the area-intensity relationship.
TABLE 2 AREA-INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS F0 F1 F2 23 F4 F5 Expected Mean area a, sq mi 0.0187 0.0824 0.2516 0.6079 1.2687 2.3933 j
Lower limit a,j sq mi 0.0079 0.0T" 0.1063 0.2542 0.5239 0.9744 Upper limit a,j sq mi 0.045 0.194 0.596 1.454 3.072 5.878 Median F-scale Windspeed, mph 56 92.5 135 182 233.5 289.5 4.
Occurrence-Intensity Relationshio Local Region 0
Latitude 41 to 44 0
0 L gitude 71 to 74 nea = 31,718 - 2773
= 28,945 sq mi An area of 2773 sq mi is deducted from the local region because of the ocean.
There are of course no tornadoes recorded over water. See Figure 1 for definition of local region and its reli;ionship to the site.
E
10 0 N
10
/
t.o
/
/
4
/
V l/
Z
/
/
/
/
O 0.1
/
/
w
/
')
/
O
,,e '
95% CONFIDENCE
{
o
/
INTERVAL Q
/
/
0.01 56 92.5 13 3.5 18 2 233.5 289.5 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 2.
AREA-INTENSITY RELATIONSHI? FOR YANKEE R0WE l
l e
Data DAPPLE Tornado Data Tape UT1678 (Fujita, et al.,1979)
Period of Record 1950 to 1978 The records used do not necessarily include every tornado that has occurred in the local region.
For one reason or another, some tornadoes go unreported.
Because the population density of the local region is fairly high (greater than 100 ;wsons per sq mi) and because the terrain is such that identifiable pucns can be seen should a tornado touch down (damage to structures, trees, fences or power lines), the number of unreported tornadoes in the region is likely to be less than ten percent.
The number of reported tornadoes in the local region is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3 NUMBER OF TORNADOES IN THE LOCAL REGION F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Number of Tornadoes 40 120 53 9
1 1
Cumulative Number 224 184 64 11 2
1 Lower Bound F-Scale Windspeed, mph 40 73 113 158 207 261 Occurrence-Intensity Function The function used is obtained by performing a linear regression analysis using the F0 and F1 tornadoes and another linear regression analysis using the FE to F5 tornadoes.
The one F5 tornado in the records is the Worcester tornado of 1953.
It creates problems with the occurrence-intensity relationship because it overloads the function towards the more intense tornado side.
Because an F5 tor-nado is a rare event, and because the period of record is only 29 years, the one event will tend to overemchasi:e the more intense tornadoes.
For this reason, a rationale judgment is made to treat the F5 tornado as if it is F4 in defining the cccurrence intensity function.
The effect does not eliminate the possibility of an F5 tornado. Over a longer period of record, a larger number of less intense tornadoes will occur so that if the regression analysis were performed at some time in the future, the net result would be essentially the same as the one performed today using the F5 torna-do as an F4.
7
Linear regression analysis of the data in Table 3 on a semi-leg plot gives the following functional relationships:
y = (284.32)10-0.00259x (x < 85 mph)
(2) y = (3968.99)l0-0.0160x (x a 85 mph) where y is the cumulative number of tornadoes with windspeeds greater than or equal to x.
Occurrence-Intensity Relationship The expected number of tornadoes in the 29 year period is obtained from the occurrence-intensity function (Equation 2).
Upper and lower bound confidence limits are also obtained at the 95 percent level.
These values are then divided by the period of record (29 years) to obtain the number of tornadoes per year for each F-scale classifica-tion A for the, which is the needed occurrence-intensity relationship required hazard probability assessment.
Table 4 lists the values used in the probab311ty calculation.
Figure 3 shows a plot of the occurrence-intensity relationship.
TABLE 4 OCCURRENCE-INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Expected number of tornadoes in inter-val, n 40.00 122.22 50.00 9.84 1.67 0.265 Lower limit n 28.77 107.62 37.79 3.83 Upper limit n 51.24 136.83 62.22 15.85 4.20 1.27 Expected number of tornadoes cer year A 1.38 4.21 1,72 0.34 0.06 0.009 Lower limit A 0.99 3.71 1.30 0.13 Upper limit A 1.77 4.72 2.15 0.55 0.14 0.044 j
5.
Tornado Hazard probability The tornado hazard probability calculations are performed by computer, although they can easily be done by hand.
The expected ha:ard probabilities are obtained by using the expected area-intensity relationship (a4) and the expected occurrence-intensity relationship 4
(Aj).
Upper and lower limits of hazard probability are obtained by using the upper and icwer limit Aj 's and aj 's respectively.
The computer printouts for these calculations are contained in Appendix A.
a
FO FI F2 F3 F4 F5 e
E 8
E g lu]O I
h
~~
O 10 0
?-
\\
N 95 PERCENT g
@ g@
gN CONFICENCE N
INTERVAL g
$h
\\
\\
10
\\
\\
H$
\\
\\
\\s
\\
lN
@ [
,g 0
50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 3.
OCCURRENCE-INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP FOR YANKEE RCWE 9
Table 5 summarizes the tornado hazard probabilities, and includes the 95 percent confidence limits.
The tornado hazard probability model is plotted in Figure 4.
Final hazard probability results are summarized in Section IV of this report.
TABLE 5 TORNADO HAZARD PROBABILITIES WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS Mean Hazard Tornado Windsoeeds, moh Recurrence Probability Expected Lower Upper Interval Per Year Value Limit Limit 10,000 1.0 x 10-4 40 87 100,000 1.0 x 10-5 122 77 174
-6 1,000,000 1.0 x 10 188 142 244
-7 10,000,000 1.0 x 10 248 190 291 1
10
C l x 10 I
$eZ h
N
-4 N
3*l0 e
CW W"
N s
X N
-5 N
y2 i r io s
N 1
g g
E
\\
\\
Ho
-6
\\
aW i x lo 3
3 s
is N
\\
$2
\\
\\
13
-7
\\
\\
\\
gxio 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 4.
TORT! ADO HAZARD PROBABILITY WITH 95 PERCEtiT CONFIDENCE LIMITS l
11
I III. STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD ASSESSMENT A.
METHODOLOGY A set of annual extreme fastest mile windspeeds are used to fit a cumulative probability distribution function in order to obtain the straight wind hazard probabilities.
The Type I extreme value function generally fits the data well.
In view of the studies by Simiu and Filliben (1975), the Type I distribution function is used in lieu of the Type II that was used previously (ANSI,1972).
A detailed description of the methodology is given in Simiu and Scanlan (1978).
A.
CALCULATIONS Annual extreme fastest-mile windspeed data are not available at the power plant site.
The closest weather station with the needed data is Albany, New Yori, which is located 42 miles east of the site (See Figure 1).
Terrain and meteorological conditions are such that the data should be representative of wind conditions at the site.
The data are taken from Simiu, Changery and Filliben (1979) and cover the forty-year period 1938 to 1977.
Statistical tests indicate that the Type I extreme value distribution does not fit the Albany data as well as some other locations within the United States (the tail length parameter y is 6 rather than infinity as required for Type I distribution).
Mcwever, because the Type II distribution predicts windspeed values at low probability levels that exceed the physical characteristics of the wind, the Type I distribution function is recommended for straight wind hazard probability assessment at this point.
12
The set of annual extreme fastest mile windspeeds for Albany, New York are given-in Table 6, along with the date and direction.
The windsoeeds have been adjusted to a standard anemometer height of 10 m.
TABLE 6 ANNUAL EXTREME FASTEST-MILE WINDSPEEDS AT ALBANY, NEW YORK Windspeed Year mph Direction Date 1938 45 W
09/21 1939 48 NW 01/25 1940 41 NW 04/05 1941 53 W
03/19 1942 44 W
03/19 1943 46 W
04/05 1944 52 W
12/28 1945 46 SW 04/05 1946 48 W
01/19 1947 44 W
01/21 1948 42 W
02/14 1949 41 W
01/19 1950 68 E
11/25 1951 50 NW 01/21 1952 55 W
01/18 1953 68 NW 02/15 1954 47 W
04/08 1955 43 W
03/27 1956 41 NW 02/25 1957 47 W
01/23 1958 41 W
02/25 1959 55 W
01/23 1960 44 W
02/20 1961 46 S
09/02 1962 40 NW O'+/25 1963 49 W
J4/04 1964 46 W
01/10 1965 44 NW 10/31 1966 48 NW 06/06 1967 49 NW 02/16 1968 47 W
02/17 1969 46 W
01/08 1970 46 W
04/03 1971 62 NW 06/0S 1972 46 NW 02/20 1973 38 NW 01/29 1974 51 NW 03/10 i
1975 49 NW 01/30 1976 53
- M 12/13 1977 46 NW 04/08 l
l 13 j
The expected windspeeds for various mean recurrence intervals along with 95 percent confidence limits are given in Table 7.
The straight wind hazard probability model is plotted in Figure 5.
TABLE 7 STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PROBABILITIES WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS Mean Excected Upoer Lower Recurrence Hazard Fastest-Mile Limit Limit Level Probability Windsoeed, mon moh moh 10 1.0 x 10-1 57 61 53
-2 20 5.0 x 10 61 66 55 50 2.0 x 10-2 66 73 59 100 1.0 x 10-2 70 78 61 200 5.0 x 10-3 73 33 64 500 2.0 x 10-3 78 89 67 1,000 1.0 x 10-3 82 94 70 10,000 1.0 x 10~#
94 110 79 100,000 1.0 x 10-5 107 127 87 1,000.000 1.0 x 10-6 119 143 96 lA J
O h
-l Ix10 g
g g
u)
\\
\\
W
\\
\\
\\
\\
H
\\
\\
-2 l x 10
\\
\\
cg
\\
\\
E<
\\
\\
\\
cw W
\\
\\
\\
\\
y2 1x10-3
\\
\\
o
\\
\\,
u.
\\
L E
\\
\\
\\
\\.
Hc
-4
\\
3y 1 x 10 i
g a w
\\
\\
\\
\\
g
\\
\\
Ek
\\
\\
-5 lxlO 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 5.
STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PRCBABILITIES WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS l
15
IV. WINDSPEED HAZARD PROBABILITY MODEL.
Windspeed hazard probability, which includes both tornadoes and straight winds, is the probability of a point within some defined geograohical region experiencing windspeeds greater than or ecual to some threshold value in one year. Tornado hazard probabilities are the same at any point within the defined local region.
The Type I extreme value distribution function obtained from data collected at Albany, New York is used for the straight wind probability hazard assessment at the Yankee Rowe plant site. Thus, in effect, Albany and the plant site are contained in a common local region.
Tornado windspeeds are referenced to 30 ft above ground level (approx-imately 10 m) and are the maximum horizontal windspeeds.
According to Fujita (1971), F-scale windspeeds are fastest-one-quarter mile winds.
However, because of the translational leed of a tornado, winds acting on a structure may be of considerably shorter duration.
Because tornado windspeeds are based on appearance of damage, they are considered to be effective velocities, which include effects of gust, structure size and structure frequency.
For design purpties, the gust response factor for tornado winds may be taken as unity.
The straight winds are fastest-mile windspeeds which have a variable time duratien, depending en the magnitude of the windspeeds. Values are normalized to a 10 m anemometer height.
For design purposes, gust response factors greater than unity are approcriate (See ANSI A53.1,1972).
The tornado and straight wind models are combined in Figure 6 to obtain the final windspeed model.
For design or evaluation purposes, one needs to know the type of storm that controls the criteria.
For windspeeds less than 105 mph, the straight wind mcdel governs.
For windspeeds greater than 105 mph, the tornado model governs.
In the case of a tornado, the 16
atmospheric pressure change and missiles must be taken into account in addition to the wind effects. Because of this, the union of the two events (tornado and straight winds) is not of particular interest. Table 8 summarizes the final windspeed hazard probabilities.
v 1
U
t r lO '
g g
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
3 Ixi6 i
2
\\
\\
\\
\\
'NEs" w
g g
c I
\\
3
\\
\\
F ixi6
\\'
\\
$z
\\
\\
5 4
\\
\\
W
\\
\\
w*
w a
\\
\\
l x 10 gg i
i
'8
\\
k 8
N i
E
\\
\\
irigs g
s bb h
\\'
BW
\\
8o
\\
\\
< 85
\\
gE ix 0
\\
-6 V
\\
95 PERCENT mm s, \\
\\
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
\\
l x 10-7
\\
50 10 0 GO 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 6.
TORNADO AND STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PROBASILITY MCDEL FOR YANKEE R0WE l
l l
18
i l
TABLE 8
SUMMARY
OF WINDSPEED HAZARD PROBABILITIES FOR YANKEE R0WE Mean Expected Recurrence Hazard Windspeed Interval Probability moh Type of Storm 10 1.0 x 10-1 57 Straight Wind 100 1.0 x 10-2 70 Straight Wind 1,000 1.0 x 10-3 82 Straight Wind
-4 10,000 1.0 x 10 94 Straight Wind 100,000 1.0 x 10-5 122 Tornado 1,000,000 1.0 x 10-6 1r,8 Tornado 10,000,000 1.0 x 10-7 748 Tornado t
19
REFERENCES 1.
ANSI, 1972:
" Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," A58.1, American National Standards Institute, Inc., New York, New York.
2.
Fujita, T.
T., 1971:
" Proposed Characterization of Tornadoes and Hurricanes by Area and Intensity," SMRP No. 91, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
3.
Fujita, T. T., Tecson, J. J, and Abbey, R. F.,1979:
" Statistics of U. S. Tornadoes Based on the DAPPLE Tornado Tape," lith Conference on Severe Local Storms, Kansas City, Missouri, October 2-5, 1979, published by American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
4.
Mcdonald, J. R.,1980:
"A Methodology for Tornado Hazard Assessment,"
Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
5.
Simiu, E., Changery, M. J. and Filliben, J. J.,1979:
" Extreme Wind-speeds at 129 Stations in the Contiguous United States," NBS Building Science Service 118, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
6.
Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R. H.,
1978: Wind Effects on Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
7.
Simiu, E. and Filliben, J. J.,1975: " Statistical Analysis of Extreme Winds," Technical Note No. 868, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
8.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1979: Demographic Statistics Pertaining to Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, NUREG-0348, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D. C.
20
1 s
=
Ty--
& 0-4
.s
- *z s
s
~~ ~ ;;
=.
we2Ce>=b
- *. ~
rs - ts** l C 2L K ?. ? V., *. 2. C.
C.= e * " C C
.'. 2 r
a z~
- ~
.w O
f.
O~
s..L
- t' C
> r. P. = 0.
- f
- '
- c e >
4 O
O C C. C. C t S. *.*
C C C C * *-
,~.
i
- .... =
= **
I ?
T L/') ~
>=
3O 4
H-E,,,,,,
, w CC..
,. ~ n, a. a.
w w
3 " O 7.,7.:.*,
"1 **
Ql 4 OOCO*
i
%.=
p.
A a..
w
.. - C. w...
.".w w
Q..
w
. * *.. C a.
. C C " ",".
^
g
.i.
LAJ H
A '
Q e
e c.
- 5
'.' C*
y C,, C.^ O N *
- O. C.. O. O * *.
. T..,.
e.
n
'.
- a c 'lr.,
'**2.
41
.I. a.
C C.,. a.
~
..e.
v w
v
- a. w w C
.wwww m
==
n w
4
?
GC A.
>C r.
me
'O E
,,..e-W
", c. c e C O.
O. f. * <
- 3
. Q,.
C..
Q.
- C.0..=.=.
0000.**.
. O;, e a
aC
- C C w. G C
,w w% = ww w -..
g M
A
- 9 t.
t s -
f.
c., y *.*
f.,..
h k
.W
.?._.
%, **. g.
...,,4..
- v. w.
f,**
A. i T
%.... v.
f
.,... ~
.*9 9.8 w
t
.ie qu w mi h.
tur
- 1. e a
. e e
f i
,w.
=. -
t
=
I.
=
s m..
w..,.. -,...
s_...
... L.
C..._...,.*';
C:
G.
.,~r-.
e 1,. ' * ~. C,* :
=
. 3 y
3, s.-
y
.. i.
w w w i
g e-.
=
1 m.
=a l
f '.
. 7 :
- * **
- O-
't
=
= ? < r.,* **.
!. a. **
- g. a. *
.* * * *. I r*
e
=
=.
=..* *
. w.
w.
a 4.... _..
.. g 4-.
a.*
"e.e e.
l
.g J.
.I.=
h.e
.S o"
g*
'g y
.e e.
m.
E.
g.e e Ib e
b e
21
o 2
e.
--O.p e.
's a d.,c.* v.
= _
~
===..
4 eg a94, b e $.4 g
wO
- m g
- g e
O e.,.. map w oe w etemp e
.me m.
w g e-e m e em
- m 6
, es dun
,,, e-M.
6
- Wup S
- yGf'P ume m em *6 eso
(=
m.
e*e W,same
+
em m
e GM e
de ame &
=*
q.
M*
W m.. g g*
-. 6W e.
O.
6 p e.
4 A.".
ge o.g. *a.
ao ashsur am=.
h 6 M e
ee.
e w
==w
==
.=
to es er..
W 4 18 W,,,
e.
6-.
g
.e.
m 6
^. 4
.e h
eD *e 0 **
Sur% M 6 g w W* t'e 6
m W pe h
h 6 e
=
A, sen #.
s4 d.l'b w
e.
A.AC S.
g e
d.it.*p 8%
Aw e8 8%
6, g
r 4'-
e art. sue m e%
s8%
,8-g gg. w
.*W a
af8@ *e e
s.%
e4 w
t,O
.A a
gig g
p.
.. w p.
C. A.
.#..4 #,
,am 4
e.
s-l l
A.
de
- OC h
m.
C dab A..
e %
e.
.&o 4..
s O
e G
g9
- Gge ee e
sdb e.e.e A
Mm.w e*-
d 8- %.
Gs, C d,em m, C e.camm e bA G.
A*
(,
=e w
my M
e ge.
eg G,
a e
.e m.=es M Pgr %m eene g
.sn wA ia e
eO O
m t ng w w O
g w
%pp e.
- e....
- ms
-W 6%
Mu=rm
,,. a ew e -.
4 w %sk g-w b..
9.*
e'muis esp V
e e
e*
- e.
D' gIEb
.,,.. t.#
a=
.=-
A
.- po sur.-.
s.ub e
e m
- es>.-
e
^W *U egg.
\\.
to G'
N g
e.st ta@W m 9m.>
e.=e.
sg e
e p
e e
h*
- ~. g.e w
w w.,.
..g.
O h
M M
S 8
h 6 6
.A *
- W e
eG O.'
e e
O O
O m
k.
ae- #.
9 G
6 9
O e6O g
e e
- w g
G 6
e e.
e,
- e en 4
e e-m-
%=
w
,#e dhe m
w et=
e
,e
+e e
4 emee gum e.
i6 W
R y*
e O
G em e
m
- Q O
em
=
+
g W
6
- .h eu d,
e e.
g 6
g a
4 M
e smD
- 8 e
mO h O
ge to' e 39 O g.
WD e
a,g 4
O O
=
.-e m
- = p 6
4** g yw e
aq, Q
e, so
- eup A
Oer "4
g 98 5
g h
W
.e
,p y
o w
w e
. c
, r
- =-,
P" w
g, O
O 8
,Om W
m h
O
=
M m
G O.
I W
e 6
9 SDh-O e
bg B
4 y
- ee m
h 8e D
9 hif> m %
.g O-
- M 6
-W" 9
m g-y d
M e
e Aas 6
e O
g 9
gG g
W O
h, g gg g u 6
e g
g d%6g.EW W
e 4O 6
g 6
WP'6 9
4 g
6 O
M e
e O
a e
e6 e
S e
6 6
6 e
g 6
T>h D '13 L D7 lD
- LMo, n
A.,
s=
a
. e 4
.h e
e,,
m.
== a C
e
- p
- = Pi M *: C ".
. =. -
g.C. "; i.,*. C
~"*
C *:.= C C O.
3 p
3
' :" :.* *C
- e g-
. =*
- , "* C.* ?; *.
= -
C C C. =. c 2. p
- =
- a. C.C w.
v.,..
C.
,.. e.
w w
O.
w
. ww w
w w
.0 CCOCCC OOOCO O *J' s
v ew
......n.
w.
,,... O
... Cw w
4.
. e, iO w w w..., C s
w w w e
C.
C.r,,,
.e,..
s s
2
- e. - C.
w G. ~
w.
w
. w..
s.
w
. v.
s.
w-
. 3,.,. C w
=
w%
v e
a.
. C..
C. u; x- **,.
.O. a..
..*?_.f C
p s.
.w...
g.
C., w r
.,=
C,s.m i
I_
. r.
i l
=..
4 84.
-4F
.gs b.
h"
&gD+..
4.e p*
4g
. - M g..h.*
g8.
e.=
m
. g g #
g ee e"
g*
e.
, g. ' _. :
ga
.4 9
e.,
w
.-=,..
'e s.
M b
r g
- s. - -
a w
g h
h-e D"~ID
=i%
mi p
p
.R.
wo
.o t
-.